Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of department stores by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of department stores by country

Indiscriminate list, tagged as such since 2006. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable list of random facts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory, and there are inherent problems: List stores that are still in business? List stores or holding companies? List stores that operate in more than one country in all those countries? What precisely IS a department store? Etc. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a perfectly good criterion: List the ones that have Wikipedia articles. A good many of them there do, though some of the geographic areas do not seem to have been worked on yet. Being defunct does not make them unimportant. Difficulties in definition can be discussed for individual instances. Not random or indiscriminate. Could use some additional content, such as dates. DGG (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly the scope needs clarification in the lead but I disagree with the nomination that this is an indiscriminate list - it is sensibly organised by country and,in several instances, by whether the store is operating or defunct. The better way forward is editorial attention rather than giving up and going for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been regularly maintained many times in the past few months, judging from the history page, including the deletion of vandalism. The list seems to be edited by people who really care about department stores. This is a great list, I would comment that WP:TABLES could be used to improve this already good list article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per nom, how is this list of department stores by country "indiscriminate"? --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Large retail chains are a major part of a county's economy. I assume the list aims at limiting itself to department store chains, instead of individual stores, so the list should not be unreasonably long, nor will it contain trivial entries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns about inclusion criteria can be addressed by editing. (I'd prefer keeping the redlinks, though, otherwise the list would lose it's usefulness compared to the existing category system. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in direct contrast to the List of specialty stores (which I AfD'd myself after splitting it out of an article) this list seems capable of being both well-defined and limited in scope and size, since there are relatively few notable chains of major department stores in each country, adds value over and above mere categorization, and has the possibility of stimulating new article creation on notable topics. -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is very much non-indiscriminate, and is also well maintained. Any issues here should be resolved via editing, not AfD. — neuro^(talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to DGG, a good critera is list the ones with Wikipedia articles. This does not seem like the case whatsoever and is a classic example of what happens to a list if let it sit like that: A whole load of non-notable stores end up getting listed. Also, why by country? Sure, there are different department stores in different countries, but there are also other gobal stores that end up getting listed on almost every country. The best solution in my mind would be to see a category implemented to take it's spot because that is an easy and almost maintenance free way to solve the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Then your issue is with policy, not this specific article. — neuro^(talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please? Tavix (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was directed at the "a whole load of non-notable stores end up getting listed" comment - if that is in general like you are saying, you should take it up with policy, not with one particular article. — neuro^(talk) 07:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.